Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[MindOverMatter2]

John21652:
I posed a question. You attempting to turn that question into an argument is unbecoming and makes obvious your temperamental shortcomings. You have made yourself look rather foolish, because the original assumption in your first statement still stands.

Get over yourself.

In other words you don’t have an argument; and you are now looking for excuses. In so far as what justifies a law being produced, my argument stands, which you admitted. Cultural tradition, faith based beliefs, do not provide a rational basis for producing law in a pluralistic society. Its short road to fascism. I guess I thought that the posters on this forum were intelligent enough to realise that the split between state and religion produces other philosophical epistemological issues for faith, tradition, and culture, in general. This much, even if it were not sufficiently present in the OP, I have certainly and sufficiently pointed it out since. Forgive me for giving your intelligence the benefit of the doubt.

You would be better off not producing ad hominem attacks, if you want to be taken seriously. I mean, why you would feel the need to say that I am trying to be smart is beyond me. Looks like jealousy to me.

 

[John21652]

What ever makes me laugh, I do. You are my play thing until I get bored.

Oh, my, what a cruel tyrant you are!

Unfortunately, not a very clever one, for the following reasons -
.1 You wasted page after page of evryone’s time trying to prove a syllogistic argument which contained a whopping great assumption. So whopping, in fact, someone in High School philosophy could have picked up on it.

1. You can’t tell the difference between a question and an assertion, as evidenced in post #97
2. And post 97 also shows a glaring lack of basic logic by asking someone to believe in an argument you say they haven’t yet produced.
3. That post also demonstrates that you do not yet have the emotional intelligence to handle a basic challenge to your flawed argument. This observation is further referenced by your apparent delight in playing with things.
4. You simply can’t overcome that assumption, contained in your, ahem, ‘premise’, which is -

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.

If you get really stuck, just let me know and I’ll even point out more than one assumption in that, ahem, ‘premise’ of yours.

Now put away your toys and start thinking…

 

[WinterLight]

MindOverMatter2,

Do you believe that your responses demonstrate the virtues or the vices? You don’t have to answer this question publicly, but I do encourage you to reflect on it privately.

 

[ssa_fellow]

As soon as you prove that objective moral law exists and follows necessarily from some fact we experience in reality, get back to me.

Until then, that’s just something you have faith in. You believe in it, but your belief in it is not by itself a compelling argument.

Its not yet evident that you can produce such an argument. So why should the state accept your assertions or assumptions as a foundation to law? If you want the state or a people to believe that, then you must prove your case. The onus is on you.

Well… isn’t having a conscience the easiest way for people to understand that there is some form of objective morality? It is innate to the human condition.

I mean, every human being has a conscience, and therefore is able to differentiate right from wrong to some degree. Barring extreme cases like people raised by wolves or serial killers. refuses to rolls eyes bc its rude and I was raised better :tsktsk:

So, doesn’t your saying something is immoral necessarily stem from objective morality existing? How else can morality exist? Outside of objective morality what is there? Moral relativism… isn’t that just the absence of morality? What other narrative of morality is there?
Mind over Matter:

Since it is not self evident, and people are divided on what would constitute a genuine rational proof of objective morality, this is not a reliable ground upon which to base a law driven society of differing beliefs about morality.

This strain of argumentation actually proves a basic tenet of Christianity. No person is able to arrive on the fullness of truth without God. So, that is why people disagree. Because, since people are innately sinful and evil… what person would naturally stumble upon a truth in which they decried all of the evil things they did as wrong? People will think SOME things are bad by themselves, but never will they identify EVERY thing which is bad as bad.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Oh, my, what a cruel tyrant you are!

Unfortunately, not a very clever one, for the following reasons -
.1 You wasted page after page of evryone’s time trying to prove a syllogistic argument which contained a whopping great assumption. So whopping, in fact, someone in High School philosophy could have picked up on it.

I produced an argument. Whether its right or wrong; it does not justify you saying that I am wasting peoples time. This is a philosophy forum were people debate. This thread is not a personal attack on your faith. Is there something mentally wrong with you?

 

[ssa_fellow]

MindOverMatter2,

Do you believe that your responses demonstrate the virtues or the vices? You don’t have to answer this question publicly, but I do encourage you to reflect on it privately.

Indeed, the virtues and vices was just where I was going to go. I think I’ll have to double post briefly.

So… if objective morality does not exist, why don’t you hold these positions:

1. It is virtuous to have an abortion. If you want to be a virtuous person have an abortion. Having abortions makes you virtuous.
2. It is virtuous to have sex. The more sex you have the more virtuous you become. Prostitues are virtuous because they have lots of sex.
3. It is virtuous to lie to people. The less honest you can be the more virtuous you are. Liars are virtuous people.

My point: these statements cry out against the conscience of any human being. Why? because of objective morality.

The problem today is that people in favor of these behaviors say “they aren’t wrong, they’re acceptable, they’re tolerable”. They then proceed to give reasons why ppl should accept and tolerate them.

So, they’re claiming things which are evil are actually neutral. But, when I say, “OK, why don’t you believe that they are morally virtuous?”

You conscience should then realize that they are in fact morally wrong. Tell me if your conscience doesn’t pick up on that. Did you have a disconnect in disbelieving they were virtuous? BC I highly doubt that outcome.

So… if they’re not morally virtuous there you are. They are vices. Its the same thing: It is not moral, it is immoral.

 

[Hadrianus]

Do you have a reading problem? Its irrelevant what some state actually does. I am taking about the theoretical consequences of there being a split between church and state. If there is a split between church and state, then such a claim can only be pragmatic. That people have value is a politically imposed value based upon the pragmatic consideration that we will all live in a better world if this is enforced by law. It is not a conviction based upon evidence of an objective moral right. The state intends to enforce it regardless of whether its objectively true that we have moral value or not.

Your personal convictions is irrelevant. If there is a split between church and state, then there is no basis upon which to reject state protected homosexual marriage.

This is not a discussion on whether or not Christianity opposes homosexuality. Take that elsewhere.

But they are not enforced by the people. Also, if people are not getting their conviction from religion, then their reasons for supporting anything is based upon either a delusion, or it is a based upon what they believe is pragmatically beneficial for society as a whole.

I have not said otherwise. The golden rule is pragmatic.

I wish only to add to this that the DOCTRINE of the separation of Church and State was consistently opposed by the Popes for 200 years. Church and State can be separated for pragmatic reasons, but it has never been the Catholic ideal, partially because of the collapse of sound morals which inevitably follows. Cf the numerous encyclicals of Leo XIII on the subject as well as Quas Primas of Pius XI. Vatican II’s declaration Dignitatis Humanae says that individuals should be free from state coercion in expressing their religious beliefs, but nowhere does it say that Church and State should be separated where a Catholic State would be possible.

All this being said, I agree that in the US the only argument at the end of the day must be based upon the will of the majority, tempered by the artificial and utilitarian construct of human rights. There is nothing in the American constitution which prevents the majority from having something if they want it. As long as the majority was content to have slavery, slavery existed. When the majority changed its mind a war was fought against the minority to end slavery. In this particular instance the majority happened to be right, but that need not be the case.

 

[John21652]

I produced an argument. Whether its right or wrong; it does not justify you saying that I am wasting peoples time. This is a philosophy forum were people debate. This thread is not a personal attack on your faith. Is there something mentally wrong with you?

My Post 94 and post #96 were offered in full charity.

You, however, answered in post #97 with more assumptions and snide sarcasm, as exampled by -

I am fully aware that you don’t have an argument. But thanks for pointing that out.

And you wrote that after I posed a genuine question.

You also tried to put the onus onto me of proving something I’d never even asserted, when you wrote this -

As soon as you prove that objective moral law exists and follows necessarily from some fact we experience in reality, get back to me.

You also wrote that after I posed a question. You were not only sarcastically snide, you made yet another assumption which even that statement contains.

After that, it has all been down hill and yet, lo and behold, your original premise, which is -

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.

still stands in all its glorious assumptiveness, because you, with your smart alec attitude, tried to sidestep it by attempting to focus your mistake onto someone else.

Hubris, writ large.

 

[ssa_fellow]

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.
2. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.
3. Given premise 1 and 2, Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

Your 2 premises have some major holes in them by the way:

1. Does the state make judgements? What are you some big government liberal who believes in all the bogus regulations regulating our lives?
2. OK, supposing they do make judgments. You’re making a big leap in saying that barring religious values there are no reasons to be against “gay rights”. Are you not aware that there are pragmatic reasons to be against “gay rights” as well? Those pragmatic reasons include why the state introduced civil marriage in the first place: for the practical concern of incentivizing people to have more children finanacially. Europe had been heavily depopulated in the 17th century. They wanted to repopulate. They introduced civil marriage. “Gays” are irrelevent to all of that, they don’t reproduce.

How does pragmatism even apply to morality anyways? If something is impractical it is immoral?

 

[WinterLight]

As long as the majority was content to have slavery, slavery existed. When the majority changed its mind a war was fought against the minority to end slavery. In this particular instance the majority happened to be right, but that need not be the case.

Off-topic, but your post demands correction. The US, while indeed tainted by the stain of slavery, was not a historical anomaly for its participation–nearly every people has enslaved or has been enslaved–rather it is anomalous because it made slavery illegal. From its inception, the US was conflicted by ideal of “all men created equal” versus the reality of slavery. One misunderstood battle to end slavery is the 3/5 compromise. It was, in fact, the so-called slave states that sought to count slaves as a “full” person, thereby by giving those states increased representation. To counter this, our Founders compromised by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, not for racist motives, but out of political foresight: save the union from collapsing, then abolish slavery. If it weren’t for this move, we might never have had a US, nevermind the abolishment of slavery.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well… isn’t having a conscience the easiest way for people to understand that there is some form of objective morality? It is innate to the human condition.

It might be innate for people to think that there is such a thing as moral truth. I don’t know that this is true. But, in any case not every body does, not everybody agrees what moral truth consists of, and neither does your statement tell us what is morally true, how to get to that moral truth, and why it isn’t just an genetic delusion coupled with the fear death. As soon as you say faith or faith in ones conscience you argument fall apart.

The objectivity of morality is not self evident and neither what it consists of is self evident; and it seems that you are willing to ignore the fact that in a pluralistic society, there is no justification in objective “fact” for placing one “moral belief” over another “moral belief”. Therefore pragmatism is the only way to proceed. If you can prove me wrong then please do so, or kindly admit that you are wrong, or simply agree to disagree. In fact it seems like you have not really been following what has been said on this thread at all.

refuses to rolls eyes bc its rude and I was raised better* :tsktsk:

Tell that to the forum administrators, perhaps they will remove the icon if they see fit to pander to your personal preferences.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

My Post 94 and post #96 were offered in full charity.

You, however, answered in post #97 with more assumptions and snide sarcasm, as exampled by -
And you wrote that after I posed a genuine question.

You also tried to put the onus onto me of proving something I’d never even asserted, when you wrote this - You also wrote that after I posed a question. You were not only sarcastically snide, you made yet another assumption which even that statement contains.

After that, it has all been down hill and yet, lo and behold, your original premise, which is - still stands in all its glorious assumptiveness, because you, with your smart alec attitude, tried to sidestep it by attempting to focus your mistake onto someone else.

Hubris, writ large.

True, I made some sarcastic remakes; that is why the “icon” rolleyes exists. However I made no assumptions when answering your so called refutation. Essentially, you said I have to prove that there isn’t another standard, outside of religious assumptions, by which we can know objective moral values and that they exist. I clearly showed you the general epistemological problems of beliefs, culture, and tradition in reference to producing laws in a pluralistic society, and why one belief cannot rationally supersede another without definite and certain evidence. I basically then stated as an inferential fact of latter that if you don’t want your moral beliefs to be treated as just one more belief among others in the cultural background of society, you have to show us, and the state, that an objective standard of moral law or moral values do in fact exist and that we can know this for certain and also know by some inferential method why a particular behaviour is truly wrong and should obtain legal stature, and is not just a cultural preference. The onus is on you to prove that such is the case.

Instead of proving your case, you proceeded to have a tantrum, spouting out lame excuses why you should not have to be a big boy and answer my argument.

That’s you problem not mine. And unless you are going to produce a sufficient argument, I am going to ignore you from this point onward. Until then, there is nothing to learn from you.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

It might be innate for people to think that there is such a thing as moral truth. I don’t know that this is true. But, in any case not every body does, not everybody agrees what moral truth consists of, and neither does your statement tell us what is morally true, how to get to that moral truth, and why it isn’t just an genetic delusion coupled with the fear death. As soon as you say faith or faith in ones conscience you argument fall apart.

The objectivity of morality is not self evident and neither what it consists of is self evident; and it seems that you are willing to ignore the fact that in a pluralistic society, there is no justification in objective “fact” for placing one “moral belief” over another “moral belief”. Therefore pragmatism is the only way to proceed. If you can prove me wrong then please do so, or kindly admit that you are wrong, or simply agree to disagree. In fact it seems like you have not really been following what has been said on this thread at all.

Well, I judge this to be an insufficient response to my 3 posts.

You’re going to tell me I can either agree with you, disagree, or admit I’m wrong?

First of all, even if I agreed that pragmatism is the only way to proceed… I poked several holes in pragmatism itself.

Furthermore, any human beings response to the absolute moral statements which I provided would show the existence of objective morality… but you don’t respond to those at all.

And, you seem to be continuing your argument that “all people cannot agree on what morality consists of”… well, why are continuing it when you failed to respond to my attack on it?

You are the one that is ignoring what I’m posting. Instead of responding to what I’ve posted you have just told me to give up, or say “agree to disagree”… well, I refuse. This is a forum and you are refusing to have a legitimate dialouge with me. You ignored almost everything I wrote in my 3 posts. And I read a good amount of this thread before posting them.

So, I conclude by repeating what I said at the top: your response to me is insufficient.

 

[blaskoman]

It’s my contention that the State is ambivalent whether or not same sex couples have the legal right to marry. It is in the State’s interest that men and women procreate in order that society has enough people to work and pay taxes. SS couples cannot contribute offspring and therefore their union is of no use to the States economic objectives.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Your 2 premises have some major holes in them by the way:

1. Does the state make judgements? What are you some big government liberal who believes in all the bogus regulations regulating our lives?
2. OK, supposing they do make judgments. You’re making a big leap in saying that barring religious values there are no reasons to be against “gay rights”. Are you not aware that there are pragmatic reasons to be against “gay rights” as well? Those pragmatic reasons include why the state introduced civil marriage in the first place: for the practical concern of incentivizing people to have more children finanacially. Europe had been heavily depopulated in the 17th century. They wanted to repopulate. They introduced civil marriage. “Gays” are irrelevent to all of that, they don’t reproduce.

How does pragmatism even apply to morality anyways? If something is impractical it is immoral?

But gay people can reproduce. Current technology allows that. And a women can choose to be carrier.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s my contention that the State is ambivalent whether or not same sex couples have the legal right to marry. It is in the State’s interest that men and women procreate in order that society has enough people to work and pay taxes. SS couples cannot contribute offspring and therefore their union is of no use to the States economic objectives.

Gay people can make up a significant portion of a particular society and its workforce. Some gay people work in high and useful places. Also, there are many children that don’t have a family. A gay couple adds to the likely hood of some child finding a decent home. There are other pragmatic grounds for saying that it would not be beneficial to the state to ignore the gay agenda.

 

[ssa_fellow]

But gay people can reproduce. Current technology allows that. And a women can choose to be carrier.

I’m gay, and I would know, gay people cannot reproduce.

2 men with all the technological devices in the world could not have a child.
2 women with all the technological devices in the world could not have a child.

What you’re talking about is in fact 1 man and 1 woman reproducing together. Albeit with technological means which are sinful anyways.

Irregardless of that, answer my questions. If you believe in morality that only comes from the fatally flawed positions of utilitarianism and pragmatism… then are you saying you disagree with these statements:

1. Having gay sex is a virtuous thing to do.
2. Having an abortion is a virtuous thing to do.
3. Lying to people is a virtuous thing to do.

If you disagree with those, then necessarily you are admitting that in fact these are immoral things. And, there are no moral reasons from utilitarianism to be against these things.

If you disagree with those statements you believe in objective morality.

 

[ssa_fellow]

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

This is a ridiculous conclusion, because you assume that a person MUST support a state.

Well, even if the state is Godless and only uses utilitarianism or pragmatism to CAST ITS JUDGEMENTS… which again I say proves you are a big government liberal. Many Americans beleive the government should make no judgements… Even if that’s how your definition of state works, why do you make the leap to say “You have to support the gay agenda despite contrary moral beliefs”.

That sounds like textbook definition fascism.

The state views things one way. People may view things another way. Those people have no choice but to support the state. They must support the judgement of the state on gay rights. They cannot use their own moral beliefs, because they arrived at those beliefs in a different way than the state.

How is that not fascism?

I mean, at a basic level, you are saying this: “If you support the separation of church and state you must side with the state”. I am just as easily going to say, “If you support the separation of church and state you should side with the church”.

You are claiming the state should be dominant over a church. Because you are saying that people HAVE TO SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.

You are making the support of gay rights compulsory. That violates separation of Church and State. In favor of state. Looks like you want to violate every religious person in this country and force them to support evil. Well, luckily that’s not going to happen.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter2,

Do you believe that your responses demonstrate the virtues or the vices? You don’t have to answer this question publicly, but I do encourage you to reflect on it privately.

In my eyes, this is just a veiled attempt to morally belittle me because you feel threatened by the truth of my argument. I don’t think you really give a dame about my soul.

I know you are having difficulty because you have found your true nemesis, but I can’t help the fact that I have an amazing brain. You are going to have to speak to God about that.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother”.

 

[John21652]

True, I made some sarcastic remakes; that is why the “icon” rolleyes exists.

When you wrote…

I am fully aware that you don’t have an argument. But thanks for pointing that out.

…you did not include any icon.
You are being philosophically dishonest. That’s a fatal flaw for any would be philosopher.

However I made no assumptions when answering your so called refutation.

Disengenuous. I made no refutation. I did two things -

1. I stated your premise contained an assumption
2. I posed a question.

Neither of those amount to a refutation.

Essentially, you said I have to prove that there isn’t another standard, outside of religious assumptions, by which we can know objective moral values and that they exist.

I never said you had to do anything. You were offered an opportunity to either accept, deny, or query my assertion that your premise contained an assumption. You took none of those options.

I clearly showed you the general epistemological problems of beliefs, culture, and tradition in reference to producing laws in a pluralistic society, and why one belief cannot rationally supersede another without definite and certain evidence.

You stated it. Stating it is not proof of that which you state. There is also an inherent contradiction in what you state. Your statement simply reinforces the assumption you made in your original premise. Until you deal with that assumption, you wont see what the problem is.

I basically then stated as an inferential fact of latter that if you don’t want your moral beliefs to be treated as just one more belief among others in the cultural background of society, you have to show us, and the state, that an objective standard of moral law or moral values do in fact exist and that we can know this for certain and also know by some inferential method why a particular behaviour is truly wrong and should obtain legal stature, and is not just a cultural preference.

True, to a point. If one can indeed arrive at an objective standard and then contrast it with the other options, as outlined in your premise, then it should be a fate accompli. However, that involves a whole lot of work that has, as yet, not been done and is nowhere evident as having ben throughout this thread. To get there by inference is inductive, yet you began by asking everybody to use deduction.

The onus is on you to prove that such is the case.

You inferred my “case”. That is dangerous, philosophically speaking. You shouold have taken the options as outlined above.

Instead of proving your case, you proceeded to have a tantrum, spouting out lame excuses why you should not have to be a big boy and answer my argument.

Now now…I never stated my “case”. I posed a question and you nown admit you inferred my “case”. You first of all tried to sidestep the assertion of there being an assumption in your premise and you did so sarcastically and dismissively. With no icon!!

You did the same to ssfellow at the bottom of post #111.

That’s you problem not mine. And unless you are going to produce a sufficient argument, I am going to ignore you from this point onward. Until then, there is nothing to learn from you.

Unless you learn to ask questions, charitably, you will learn nothing. You assume you know where the thought trains of others will/might lead. The problem is still yours until you admit that there is an undealt with assumption in your original premise and have the intellectual courage to take one of the three options given above.

Putting me onto ignore will just leave your error for all others to see.

Your choice.